‘Super’ change not so straightforward

Dear Editor, For those who seem a little confused as to the significance of the Social Assistance Bill currently before the New Zealand parliament I offer the following comments.

Firstly, let me clarify one point. Under the present New Zealand legislation, the time of residence in New Zealand (after the age of 20) to qualify for New Zealand superannuation (New Zealand’s) is stated as 10 to 20 years.

However, a 10-year residency only entitles a recipient to half the pension, increasing proportionally for the intervening years until 20 or more, when the full pension applies.

We have been lobbying for many years to have the New Zealand’s superannuation paid locally instead of the recipients needing to spend up to five years in New Zealand to qualify. It is therefore gratifying that the Social Assistance Bill will enable those who returned or settled in their respective realm islands (Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau and New Zealand expats living there) to apply for New Zealand’s locally.

However, a recent letter received from New Zealand Foreign Minister McCully indicates that the existing clause, ‘One must have been resident in New Zealand for at least five years after the age of 50’, will be retained.

This so-called ’55 years rule’ creates a catch-22 situation. If it’s retained, only those who left New Zealand at 55 years or over after spending their 10 to 20 years there would benefit. They would become an elite group among our senior citizens.

Accordingly, several submissions (including mine, on behalf of ‘The Lost Tribe’) have been sent to the Social Services select committee considering this bill, stressing the need to have the three realm countries exempt from this unjust and discriminatory 55 years rule.

If it is not waived, this will still leave a residue of senior citizens (who spent their qualifying time in New Zealand but left before age 55) who would become a disadvantaged minority in our small community.

We understand our government has submitted a joint proposal with the realm countries to the select committee. Perhaps a government spokesman could assure us, through these columns, that the said proposal includes the exemption of the 55 years rule.

All we are asking for is a fair deal and a level playing field, since this will be the last opportunity in the foreseeable future to settle this festering issue once and for all.

Potential beneficiaries should be eligible to apply locally for the New Zealand pension by virtue of the qualifying time spent in New Zealand, irrespective of what age they left there to return or settle and contribute their money, skills and productivity for the betterment of their island communities.

Les Priest

Matavera